MDFMR Advancement Committee August 3, 2009 PRESENT: Jenny Pisculli, Chair; Kat Brandt; Nancy Weingarten; Andy Rice; Katje Musgrave;en Gershman (phone); Jenifer Van Deusen (notes). 1.Welcome/ Outcomes/ Overview: Jenny welcomed the members and reviewed the outcomes for the meeting, which were: Be able to describe a basic protocol for resident evaluation; Determine preliminary review format; Review preliminary proposed schedule; and Express enthusiasm about the process and the work. 2.Check In/ Norms/ Team Roles: A brief check in revealed that the hospital review was on peoples’ minds, as was the wearing of shoes post-sabbatical. The norms were revisited. 3.Revisit Notes from 7.22.09: Jenny summarized the last meeting. The purpose of this committee is to evaluate all residents the required number of times a year in a timely manner, using the competencies in meaningful ways, through an open process that residents and faculty understand, a uniform yet flexible process based on IEPs. 4.Logistics/ Review Draft Schedule: We plan on reviewing 2 residents per meeting. Fellows will need to be evaluated as they have been in the past. Davene is working on scheduling based on past evaluations and resident/ advisor availability. Logistical steps listed in the Draft Overview document/ things to consider: Step 1: Resident and advisor complete IEP. IEPs have gone out already yet people may not know how to use it. Also must make clear what the residency can/can’t do. Electives are the best place to allow for resident design to fill a gap or meet a goal. Also may consider longitudinal training (1/2 day a week for a year? Jenny will talk to Fred about this.) Another issue on the table: How soon can we identify deficiencies without over-scrutinizing people? Step 2: Pre-assigned Advancement Committee member puts together a presentation of the resident, using a combination of the SOAP note and our protocol (as demo’d by Jenny, available on wikispace). The Subjective piece of the SOAP note may be contributed by the advisor or gathered in some kind of summary form. If the advisor is an AC member, someone else makes the preso. The week before the resident is evaluated, the faculty at the appropriate site will be asked to complete a quick questionnaire on the resident’s Outpatient Patient Care. (Jenny will take a stab at designing this) We need a system that tracks the receipt of evaluations and the collation of the required numbers of procedures, etc. NewInnovations may be able to automate this. Kat and Jeniferwill get admin accounts and learn how this system can support the AC process. Also, outside attendings will be asked to complete evaluations on NI electronically, as appropriate. Jenifer will add Sign Out info to the Patient Care list of data. How should we gather data on this (peer feedback was mentioned). For Practice-Based Learning, we will print out copies of the resident’s notes from one day, so s/he can receive feedback on this (and the AC can gather info on what needs to be taught).Jenifer will add this to the list . Also Jenifer will add EMR skills to this list. For Professionalism, we will look at patient satisfaction. Jenifer collated a bunch of these surveys and will ensure that they go into resident and faculty files. How do we look at efficiency? For Interpersonal & Communication Skills, observations of the residents can be used, in conjunction with a taped encounter when possible. Jenifer will attach to these notes the SEGUE format she uses. We must determine what we will use for Systems-Based Practice and Integrative Medicine/ Osteopathic Skills. Kat and Jenifer will work on creating a periodic evaluation form that blends the formative & summative with the SOAP note and promotion criteria. 5.Mock Resident Review/ Test Drive Draft Protocol: We walked through this with Katje serving as a gracious example. We did this simoultaneous to the steps, above. Katje said that it was very useful to her and held great promise of improving resident learning. 6.Check Out/ Outcomes Check/ Norms check 7.Next Steps/ Next Meeting August 19th: At the next meeting we will do another review. Kat will present Andrea Abrell. Nancy will have Dennis Powers pull out a day of Andrea’s coding. We will also focus on how we will refine our process for the future.
August 3, 2009
PRESENT: Jenny Pisculli, Chair; Kat Brandt; Nancy Weingarten; Andy Rice; Katje Musgrave;en Gershman (phone); Jenifer Van Deusen (notes).
1. Welcome/ Outcomes/ Overview: Jenny welcomed the members and reviewed the outcomes for the meeting, which were:
Be able to describe a basic protocol for resident evaluation;
Determine preliminary review format;
Review preliminary proposed schedule; and
Express enthusiasm about the process and the work.
2. Check In/ Norms/ Team Roles: A brief check in revealed that the hospital review was on peoples’ minds, as was the wearing of shoes post-sabbatical. The norms were revisited.
3. Revisit Notes from 7.22.09: Jenny summarized the last meeting. The purpose of this committee is to evaluate all residents the required number of times a year in a timely manner, using the competencies in meaningful ways, through an open process that residents and faculty understand, a uniform yet flexible process based on IEPs.
4. Logistics/ Review Draft Schedule: We plan on reviewing 2 residents per meeting. Fellows will need to be evaluated as they have been in the past. Davene is working on scheduling based on past evaluations and resident/ advisor availability. Logistical steps listed in the Draft Overview document/ things to consider:
Step 1: Resident and advisor complete IEP. IEPs have gone out already yet people may not know how to use it. Also must make clear what the residency can/can’t do. Electives are the best place to allow for resident design to fill a gap or meet a goal. Also may consider longitudinal training (1/2 day a week for a year? Jenny will talk to Fred about this.)
Another issue on the table: How soon can we identify deficiencies without over-scrutinizing people?
Step 2: Pre-assigned Advancement Committee member puts together a presentation of the resident, using a combination of the SOAP note and our protocol (as demo’d by Jenny, available on wikispace).
The Subjective piece of the SOAP note may be contributed by the advisor or gathered in some kind of summary form. If the advisor is an AC member, someone else makes the preso. The week before the resident is evaluated, the faculty at the appropriate site will be asked to complete a quick questionnaire on the resident’s Outpatient Patient Care. (Jenny will take a stab at designing this)
We need a system that tracks the receipt of evaluations and the collation of the required numbers of procedures, etc. NewInnovations may be able to automate this. Kat and Jenifer will get admin accounts and learn how this system can support the AC process.
Also, outside attendings will be asked to complete evaluations on NI electronically, as appropriate.
Jenifer will add Sign Out info to the Patient Care list of data. How should we gather data on this (peer feedback was mentioned).
For Practice-Based Learning, we will print out copies of the resident’s notes from one day, so s/he can receive feedback on this (and the AC can gather info on what needs to be taught). Jenifer will add this to the list . Also Jenifer will add EMR skills to this list.
For Professionalism, we will look at patient satisfaction. Jenifer collated a bunch of these surveys and will ensure that they go into resident and faculty files. How do we look at efficiency?
For Interpersonal & Communication Skills, observations of the residents can be used, in conjunction with a taped encounter when possible. Jenifer will attach to these notes the SEGUE format she uses.
We must determine what we will use for Systems-Based Practice and Integrative Medicine/ Osteopathic Skills.
Kat and Jenifer will work on creating a periodic evaluation form that blends the formative & summative with the SOAP note and promotion criteria.
5. Mock Resident Review/ Test Drive Draft Protocol: We walked through this with Katje serving as a gracious example. We did this simoultaneous to the steps, above. Katje said that it was very useful to her and held great promise of improving resident learning.
6. Check Out/ Outcomes Check/ Norms check
7. Next Steps/ Next Meeting August 19th: At the next meeting we will do another review. Kat will present Andrea Abrell. Nancy will have Dennis Powers pull out a day of Andrea’s coding. We will also focus on how we will refine our process for the future.